This web site contains copyrighted material and information which is governed under the following statute:
Click on the link below to read 17 USC CHP. 1. §107
20041027
Cast the mote from thine own eye first...
This article, from Reuters, was rather disturbing when I came across it, and then I realized that it wasn't some type of joke. I am convinced more and more every day that we have taken 'freedoms' to far. I often wonder, why we are trying to make things, people, countries, etc..., 'free' when all we do after that is to bind it to hell, evil, and death! Freedom is a wonderful thing, a true gift from the almighty God, to be cherished, not trampled upon and abused. There are some things in this world that are wrong at the very base level of existence. In my opinion this type of behavior is one of them. Unfortunately, this type of mass hysteria, surrounding personal freedoms isn't simply limited to the UK. We talk about battling evil countries through out the world and then I find an article like this and it makes me wonder where the evil actually lies!
Craziness! Complete Craziness!
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved; article courtesy of Reuters.
British Military Enlists Its First Satanist
Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:33 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Armed Forces have enlisted their first Satanist after a naval technician serving on a frigate was granted permission to practice his beliefs while at sea, the Ministry of Defense said Sunday.
Defending the decision to allow a Satanist among the Royal Navy's ranks, a ministry spokesman said it was an "equal opportunities employer" and did not discriminate against specific religious beliefs.
"He went to his commanding officer with a request to practice his beliefs on board his ship and it was granted ... We believe he is the first avowed Satanist to serve in the military, but there is no official register of beliefs," the spokesman said.
The Sunday Telegraph newspaper said Chris Cranmer, 24, from Edinburgh, Scotland would be allowed to have a funeral carried out by the Church of Satan should he be killed in action.
The Church of Satan was founded in the 1960s, but Satanism can refer to a diverse set of practices that include viewing Satan as a force of nature.
Members of the church, which rejects Christian ideas of God and the Devil, follow 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth.
The belief system has been condemned as a cult by some religious groups and at least one opposition politician expressed dismay after Cranmer won permission to practice Satanism aboard a Royal Navy ship.
"I am utterly shocked by this," said Conservative parliamentarian Anne Widdecombe.
"Satanism is wrong. Obviously the private beliefs of individuals anywhere including the armed forces are their own affair but I hope it doesn't spread," she said.
Craziness! Complete Craziness!
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved; article courtesy of Reuters.
British Military Enlists Its First Satanist
Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:33 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Armed Forces have enlisted their first Satanist after a naval technician serving on a frigate was granted permission to practice his beliefs while at sea, the Ministry of Defense said Sunday.
Defending the decision to allow a Satanist among the Royal Navy's ranks, a ministry spokesman said it was an "equal opportunities employer" and did not discriminate against specific religious beliefs.
"He went to his commanding officer with a request to practice his beliefs on board his ship and it was granted ... We believe he is the first avowed Satanist to serve in the military, but there is no official register of beliefs," the spokesman said.
The Sunday Telegraph newspaper said Chris Cranmer, 24, from Edinburgh, Scotland would be allowed to have a funeral carried out by the Church of Satan should he be killed in action.
The Church of Satan was founded in the 1960s, but Satanism can refer to a diverse set of practices that include viewing Satan as a force of nature.
Members of the church, which rejects Christian ideas of God and the Devil, follow 11 Satanic Rules of the Earth.
The belief system has been condemned as a cult by some religious groups and at least one opposition politician expressed dismay after Cranmer won permission to practice Satanism aboard a Royal Navy ship.
"I am utterly shocked by this," said Conservative parliamentarian Anne Widdecombe.
"Satanism is wrong. Obviously the private beliefs of individuals anywhere including the armed forces are their own affair but I hope it doesn't spread," she said.
20041026
This pic speaks for itself...
And this guy wants to be the next President of the United States, perhaps he should get some better press people.
Craziness! Complete Craziness!
Craziness! Complete Craziness!
Kissing butt...
I found this little tid-bit on AOL. It doesn't surprise me but it does make me wonder why we question scandles like Enron and others when brown-nosers who are simply self-serving, and selfish are at the top.
Brown-nosers Get the Job
A recent study by the University of Florida shows that "kissing up, being nice and agreeing more than disagreeing" were the most effective ways to get a job. Here are some examples of how to win over a recruiter:
Interview Do's
·Agree outwardly, even if you disagree.
·Compliment interviewer's appearance.
Interview Don'ts
·Play up accomplishments.
·Overstate qualifications.
Obviously, the word Integrity needs to be explained to people!
Brown-nosers Get the Job
A recent study by the University of Florida shows that "kissing up, being nice and agreeing more than disagreeing" were the most effective ways to get a job. Here are some examples of how to win over a recruiter:
Interview Do's
·Agree outwardly, even if you disagree.
·Compliment interviewer's appearance.
Interview Don'ts
·Play up accomplishments.
·Overstate qualifications.
Obviously, the word Integrity needs to be explained to people!
Random stuff...
Well, I haven't been able to blog as much as I would have liked since school started this semester. My schedule is a little nuts and I have a lot of conflicts. Anyway, I was saddened to see the Yankees loose to the Red Sox last week. But more than that I was truly heart broken to learn a girl died at Finnway park after Boston won the game. 80,000+ people, lots of alcohol, and police in riot gear always make for something bad to happen. I have to agree with the young girl's father, who said, this should never happen to anyone.
The election is quickly coming up so everyone should vote regardless of who you vote for!
My friend Seraphim seems to have a mysterious and rather obnoxious commenter on his blog who can't bolster the courage to identify him/herself. I have long thought people have to much time on their hands.
Mid-terms are coming up! Ugghh!!!
The election is quickly coming up so everyone should vote regardless of who you vote for!
My friend Seraphim seems to have a mysterious and rather obnoxious commenter on his blog who can't bolster the courage to identify him/herself. I have long thought people have to much time on their hands.
Mid-terms are coming up! Ugghh!!!
20041017
The issue of language...will it get crazier???
I read this letter to the editor and I about fell off my chair! Oh yeh! Don't the angels speak Greek too...? Craziness! Complete Craziness!
I found this letter on the Orthodox Christian News Service.
Greek Language Left Out of “The Passion of the Christ”
To the Editor,
The Release of "The Passion of the Christ" certainly sparked interest in those who may have limited knowledge of the life of Jesus. Jesus remains an enigma to many people to this day, not just believers but also curiosity-seekers. To many people, this film is looked upon as a blessing, as well as a return to spirituality on a global level in a sea of materialism, war, violence, greed and the breakdown of morality and ethics in today’s society. Gibson promised to deliver a shockingly unforgettable final twelve hours in the life of Jesus, and to produce a motion picture accurately based on the Gospel of Matthew.
In all the research done by Mel Gibson, one very important factor was completely left out: the Greek language (Koine-common Greek). Historians agree that the people of the Mediterranean spoke Greek as the language of business and of civil administration. Greek bridged the communication gap between Rome and the East. Jesus spoke both his native Aramaic, which was his mother tongue as well as Greek, which was the language of the elite and the well-educated. Latin was the language of military administration. Also, it is a fact that after the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.), the Greek language and culture spread like wildfire across the lands of the Eastern Mediterranean.
From Greece all the way to Ancient Bactria (what is now Afghanistan), Judea in the time of Jesus remained so heavily influenced by Hellenistic civilization and culture that all the Books of the New Testament were written in the original Greek language, which served as the first written medium in which Christianity spread. Those that visit the Holy Sight in Jerusalem can't help but notice many ancient buildings with Greek inscriptions like the Pratorion, the prison of Jesus. The Apostle Paul, born in Tarsus in Asia Minor was a Roman citizen, and a Jew, whose native language was Greek.
Marianna Steriadis
Steven J. Saravan
Educators, World Languages Department Senior High School
-excerpted Saint Petersburg Times
I found this letter on the Orthodox Christian News Service.
Greek Language Left Out of “The Passion of the Christ”
To the Editor,
The Release of "The Passion of the Christ" certainly sparked interest in those who may have limited knowledge of the life of Jesus. Jesus remains an enigma to many people to this day, not just believers but also curiosity-seekers. To many people, this film is looked upon as a blessing, as well as a return to spirituality on a global level in a sea of materialism, war, violence, greed and the breakdown of morality and ethics in today’s society. Gibson promised to deliver a shockingly unforgettable final twelve hours in the life of Jesus, and to produce a motion picture accurately based on the Gospel of Matthew.
In all the research done by Mel Gibson, one very important factor was completely left out: the Greek language (Koine-common Greek). Historians agree that the people of the Mediterranean spoke Greek as the language of business and of civil administration. Greek bridged the communication gap between Rome and the East. Jesus spoke both his native Aramaic, which was his mother tongue as well as Greek, which was the language of the elite and the well-educated. Latin was the language of military administration. Also, it is a fact that after the conquests of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.), the Greek language and culture spread like wildfire across the lands of the Eastern Mediterranean.
From Greece all the way to Ancient Bactria (what is now Afghanistan), Judea in the time of Jesus remained so heavily influenced by Hellenistic civilization and culture that all the Books of the New Testament were written in the original Greek language, which served as the first written medium in which Christianity spread. Those that visit the Holy Sight in Jerusalem can't help but notice many ancient buildings with Greek inscriptions like the Pratorion, the prison of Jesus. The Apostle Paul, born in Tarsus in Asia Minor was a Roman citizen, and a Jew, whose native language was Greek.
Marianna Steriadis
Steven J. Saravan
Educators, World Languages Department Senior High School
-excerpted Saint Petersburg Times
Issue of feamlae deacons...
This is an issue that usually polarizes people to one side or the other. I found this article on the Orthodox Christian News Service.
Published by Ekathimerini.com, October 9, 2004
Church steps back to the future
The Greek Orthodox Church seems to have taken tentative steps toward entertaining the possibility of inducting women into its order for the first time since the fifth century, after the Holy Synod said that the subject was broached during its meeting yesterday.
The Church governing body said Bishop Chrysostomos of Halkida had initiated a discussion on the subject of the role of women in the Church and the revival of female deacons, who were part of the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries. Twelve bishops and Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Church of Greece, make up the Holy Synod.
It was decided that women could be used as deacons in remote monasteries, at the discretion of bishops. However, the Holy Synod ruled that the women would not be formally ordained. This outcome did not please some of the holy men. "The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries," Chrysostomos, the bishop of Peristeri, is quoted as saying by the Athens News Agency (ANA).
Other bishops felt there was no need to go any further than the Holy Synod had decided. "As far as I know, the induction of women into the police and the army was a failure and we want to return to this old matter?" said Anthimos, bishop of Thessaloniki.
Meanwhile, the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece, a body made up of 62 bishops, voted against allowing Archbishop Christodoulos to meet with the pope, for the time being. Christodoulos had planned to spend time with Pope John Paul II during a forthcoming trip to Rome, to reciprocate the Pontiff's ground-breaking official visit to Greece in 2001. After the vote, the archbishop was quoted as saying he still believed that the Church of Greece should be open to more progressive ideas.
Published by Ekathimerini.com, October 9, 2004
Church steps back to the future
The Greek Orthodox Church seems to have taken tentative steps toward entertaining the possibility of inducting women into its order for the first time since the fifth century, after the Holy Synod said that the subject was broached during its meeting yesterday.
The Church governing body said Bishop Chrysostomos of Halkida had initiated a discussion on the subject of the role of women in the Church and the revival of female deacons, who were part of the Church during the fourth and fifth centuries. Twelve bishops and Archbishop Christodoulos, the head of the Church of Greece, make up the Holy Synod.
It was decided that women could be used as deacons in remote monasteries, at the discretion of bishops. However, the Holy Synod ruled that the women would not be formally ordained. This outcome did not please some of the holy men. "The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries," Chrysostomos, the bishop of Peristeri, is quoted as saying by the Athens News Agency (ANA).
Other bishops felt there was no need to go any further than the Holy Synod had decided. "As far as I know, the induction of women into the police and the army was a failure and we want to return to this old matter?" said Anthimos, bishop of Thessaloniki.
Meanwhile, the Hierarchs of the Church of Greece, a body made up of 62 bishops, voted against allowing Archbishop Christodoulos to meet with the pope, for the time being. Christodoulos had planned to spend time with Pope John Paul II during a forthcoming trip to Rome, to reciprocate the Pontiff's ground-breaking official visit to Greece in 2001. After the vote, the archbishop was quoted as saying he still believed that the Church of Greece should be open to more progressive ideas.
ALCS game 4
The Yanks are ahead in Game 4 and I have to wonder if the Red Sox can come back from the pounding they took last night. This game isn't over yet so I won't start praising the Yanks just yet...Stay tuned sports fans
20041009
The second Presidential debate...
I don't have a lot to say about this one. I do think President Bush was a clear winner. Maybe not by a knock out but a clear winner! Some things I found interesting:
First, the President was really in his element he works well addressing groups of people as opposed to the structure from the first debate. This hurt Sen. Kerry and his people even said this going into the debate.
I can't believe that Sen. Kerry actually looked into the camera and said he wouldn't raise taxes if he won. I think every president who has said this has probably raised taxes. That would be a good stat for factcheck.com maybe I will have to research that one. Howbeit, he qualified it with a tax increase for the rich (over $200,000 a year). If he somehow wins that will bite him in the ass! I have to agree with the President on this one. LOOK AT HIS RECORD PEOPLE! Not to mention his math doesn't add up even if you use his figures.
I think the Presidents weakest answer was probably on a little talked about issue in this campaign, that being the environment. It was a good answer but to be honest I think we have forgotten about the environment because of 911 and the war. Understandable(I know I just pissed off a lot of environmentalists but oh well!) but we need to do more in that area.
Sen. Kerry's best moment was a response he gave the President concerning labels. He almost had me there for a moment --but it was nonetheless a strong response!
His worst moment was the question on stem cell research. Sen. Kerry's position is full of hole for those against abortion. I think the President had a much better answer in this regard.
The next one is in Arizona and if it is good as this one it will definitely be worth watching. One more thing I am wondering if people noticed? Why is it that the media will address Sen. Kerry as, Senator; but the President is being called Mr. Bush? Chalk one up for the liberal media. Till next time and remember to VOTE!!!
UPDATE: A quick update to this post-- THIS JUST IN THE NY YANKEES WIN TO GO ONTO THE ALCS AGAINST THE -- girly boston red sox. THE NY YANKEES ARE THE BEST TEAM IN BASEBALL. OH BY THE WAY I DO REALIZE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!! :)
First, the President was really in his element he works well addressing groups of people as opposed to the structure from the first debate. This hurt Sen. Kerry and his people even said this going into the debate.
I can't believe that Sen. Kerry actually looked into the camera and said he wouldn't raise taxes if he won. I think every president who has said this has probably raised taxes. That would be a good stat for factcheck.com maybe I will have to research that one. Howbeit, he qualified it with a tax increase for the rich (over $200,000 a year). If he somehow wins that will bite him in the ass! I have to agree with the President on this one. LOOK AT HIS RECORD PEOPLE! Not to mention his math doesn't add up even if you use his figures.
I think the Presidents weakest answer was probably on a little talked about issue in this campaign, that being the environment. It was a good answer but to be honest I think we have forgotten about the environment because of 911 and the war. Understandable(I know I just pissed off a lot of environmentalists but oh well!) but we need to do more in that area.
Sen. Kerry's best moment was a response he gave the President concerning labels. He almost had me there for a moment --but it was nonetheless a strong response!
His worst moment was the question on stem cell research. Sen. Kerry's position is full of hole for those against abortion. I think the President had a much better answer in this regard.
The next one is in Arizona and if it is good as this one it will definitely be worth watching. One more thing I am wondering if people noticed? Why is it that the media will address Sen. Kerry as, Senator; but the President is being called Mr. Bush? Chalk one up for the liberal media. Till next time and remember to VOTE!!!
UPDATE: A quick update to this post-- THIS JUST IN THE NY YANKEES WIN TO GO ONTO THE ALCS AGAINST THE -- girly boston red sox. THE NY YANKEES ARE THE BEST TEAM IN BASEBALL. OH BY THE WAY I DO REALIZE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!! :)
The Yankees WIN!!!
Well sports fans the NY Yankees won over the Minnesota Twins, again!!! That means its back to the Bronx to take on the Boston Red Sox on Tuesday. I must say here at school the Red Sox fans were even happy to see a rematch of last years ALCS.
I hope this years ALCS is as good as last years! Way to Go NY!
In case any of you are wondering the NY Yankees are the best team in baseball!
I hope this years ALCS is as good as last years! Way to Go NY!
In case any of you are wondering the NY Yankees are the best team in baseball!
20041006
The VP debate and one hell of a funny cartoon...
Well this post is turning into a pain in the butt! I wrote a different version earlier this morning and I lost it when I thought I posted it. Ugghh! Anyway this is the second draft so hopefully it will be better right? :-)
The cartoon is posted here because I think it is hilarious, not because I don't like the current VP Dick Cheney. I found it on James' page so thanks go out to him for the photo!
Now onto the serious stuff. I thought that the VP actually won last nights debate by a decent margin. I didn't see that it was a draw like I previously posted about the first presidential debate. I think that the Dick Cheney out-classed Sen. Edwards at every turn. Sen. Edwards' best moment was probably his opening comment concerning the war on Iraq, I don't think it was accurate but it was where he appeared the strongest. Anyway, one major problem that Sen. Edwards had was that he is supporting a guy that has moved around like a "wiggly-worm" and that is difficult to do. The Vice President took advantage of this too.
I thought that the questions were somewhat strange and at least one of them in my opinion was out of line. Sen. Edwards was asked about his qualifications for the job of VP. A good question but this is something that should be spelled out on the campaign trail not in a televised debate. I think the Vice President rightly asked, "you want me to respond to a question about his qualifications?" when it came time for him to rebut the question. What is the other side going to say? Of course they don't think he is qualified that is why they are running against each other. That question was a waste of time!
One problem that I saw, and I believe will only worsen for Kerry-Edwards, is that Sen. Edwards had time management problems. The VP was much more concise and to the point. Sen. Edwards often, from the middle of the debate forward, used time from the current question to answer the previous one. As a result I felt like I didn't get a complete answer from him. Again though I think this had to do with the fact that he is defending Sen. John Kerry's positions and not his own. Furthermore, Edwards made it clear that he and Sen. Kerry really don't know each other that well which obviously caused the two problems in coordination for the VP debate. Interestingly though I think Edwards actually has a lot of talent. From the beginning of the democratic primary I have said that Edwards would have made the better front runner. Way better than Kerry in my opinion.
Now the spin masters are working hard to turn this towards a win for Kerry-Edwards campaign. The media during this election, more than any other I can remember in recent times --even non-presidential, is going overboard for the democrats. I understand that the media is generally liberal in this country but again regardless of where you stand in the political isle I think it is clear to see that there is some favoritism towards Kerry-Edwards. I also think that this favoritism is hurting the Bush campaign somewhat.
The Vice President scored three major blows in my opinion. First, was when he said Edwards didn't acknowledge the loss of Iraqi lives in defense of their country. Second, was an issue that came up concerning gay marriages. Edwards mentioned Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. I think he did this hoping to set Cheney off or put him off balance but it back-fired on him. Now this is something that the public knows about but there was no need to rub it in the VP's face. Cheney handled it with easy and calm. It was a feather in the VP's cap for him to be able to say, yeh I don't agree with my boss, but you know what he is still the boss and I support what he does! Finally, I think the Vice President scored big with people because he remained composed through out the whole debate. He also pointed out that Sen. Edwards has a not so good track record in the Senate. When Cheney said, that the debate was the first time he had met Edwards that hurt --as opposed to in the Senate itself. Edwards left that unanswered which was a mistake in my opinion. From about the middle of the debate forward Edwards seem to get a little rattled --especially after the Iraqi denial accusation and I don't think he got back on his feet after this.
I do think Edwards landed some blows but nothing that could get through the Vice Presidents experience. That was something that I think most people expected. Cheney has a lot of experience and it showed. Edwards had to expect this to but I think he approached the situation the wrong way. He didn't need to emphasize that Cheney had more experience --everyone already knew this. He did this a couple of times which was again giving up to much to the other side.
I don't think this debate changed to many minds however. I think it went the way most people thought it would. I will be watching the next presidential debate so I will comment more after that one is over. Regardless of which side of the isle you are on you need to remember to do one think on the second of November --VOTE!!!
The cartoon is posted here because I think it is hilarious, not because I don't like the current VP Dick Cheney. I found it on James' page so thanks go out to him for the photo!
Now onto the serious stuff. I thought that the VP actually won last nights debate by a decent margin. I didn't see that it was a draw like I previously posted about the first presidential debate. I think that the Dick Cheney out-classed Sen. Edwards at every turn. Sen. Edwards' best moment was probably his opening comment concerning the war on Iraq, I don't think it was accurate but it was where he appeared the strongest. Anyway, one major problem that Sen. Edwards had was that he is supporting a guy that has moved around like a "wiggly-worm" and that is difficult to do. The Vice President took advantage of this too.
I thought that the questions were somewhat strange and at least one of them in my opinion was out of line. Sen. Edwards was asked about his qualifications for the job of VP. A good question but this is something that should be spelled out on the campaign trail not in a televised debate. I think the Vice President rightly asked, "you want me to respond to a question about his qualifications?" when it came time for him to rebut the question. What is the other side going to say? Of course they don't think he is qualified that is why they are running against each other. That question was a waste of time!
One problem that I saw, and I believe will only worsen for Kerry-Edwards, is that Sen. Edwards had time management problems. The VP was much more concise and to the point. Sen. Edwards often, from the middle of the debate forward, used time from the current question to answer the previous one. As a result I felt like I didn't get a complete answer from him. Again though I think this had to do with the fact that he is defending Sen. John Kerry's positions and not his own. Furthermore, Edwards made it clear that he and Sen. Kerry really don't know each other that well which obviously caused the two problems in coordination for the VP debate. Interestingly though I think Edwards actually has a lot of talent. From the beginning of the democratic primary I have said that Edwards would have made the better front runner. Way better than Kerry in my opinion.
Now the spin masters are working hard to turn this towards a win for Kerry-Edwards campaign. The media during this election, more than any other I can remember in recent times --even non-presidential, is going overboard for the democrats. I understand that the media is generally liberal in this country but again regardless of where you stand in the political isle I think it is clear to see that there is some favoritism towards Kerry-Edwards. I also think that this favoritism is hurting the Bush campaign somewhat.
The Vice President scored three major blows in my opinion. First, was when he said Edwards didn't acknowledge the loss of Iraqi lives in defense of their country. Second, was an issue that came up concerning gay marriages. Edwards mentioned Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. I think he did this hoping to set Cheney off or put him off balance but it back-fired on him. Now this is something that the public knows about but there was no need to rub it in the VP's face. Cheney handled it with easy and calm. It was a feather in the VP's cap for him to be able to say, yeh I don't agree with my boss, but you know what he is still the boss and I support what he does! Finally, I think the Vice President scored big with people because he remained composed through out the whole debate. He also pointed out that Sen. Edwards has a not so good track record in the Senate. When Cheney said, that the debate was the first time he had met Edwards that hurt --as opposed to in the Senate itself. Edwards left that unanswered which was a mistake in my opinion. From about the middle of the debate forward Edwards seem to get a little rattled --especially after the Iraqi denial accusation and I don't think he got back on his feet after this.
I do think Edwards landed some blows but nothing that could get through the Vice Presidents experience. That was something that I think most people expected. Cheney has a lot of experience and it showed. Edwards had to expect this to but I think he approached the situation the wrong way. He didn't need to emphasize that Cheney had more experience --everyone already knew this. He did this a couple of times which was again giving up to much to the other side.
I don't think this debate changed to many minds however. I think it went the way most people thought it would. I will be watching the next presidential debate so I will comment more after that one is over. Regardless of which side of the isle you are on you need to remember to do one think on the second of November --VOTE!!!
20041005
The cost of war...
This article is courtesy of the Associated Press, Copyright Law apply.
I found this article on CNN.com and it is really sad. It is also worth taking note of. To often we look at things from a standpoint of winning or loosing. How often we forget that in a war everyone looses.
Mother of soldier killed in Iraq collapses, dies
'Her grief was so intense,' hospital worker says
Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)
TUCSON, Arizona (AP) -- A 45-year-old woman collapsed and died days after learning her son had been killed in Iraq, and just hours after seeing his body.
Results of an autopsy were not immediately released, but friends of Karen Unruh-Wahrer said she couldn't stop crying over losing her 25-year-old son, Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh, who was killed by enemy fire near Baghdad on September 25.
"Her grief was so intense -- it seemed it could have harmed her, could have caused a heart attack. Her husband described it as a broken heart," said Cheryl Hamilton, manager of respiratory care services at University Medical Center, where Unruh-Wahrer worked as a respiratory therapist.
Unruh, a combat engineer, had been in Iraq less than a month when he was shot during an attack on his unit.
Several days after learning of his death, his mother had gone to the hospital complaining of chest pains, Hamilton said. She was feeling better the next day but saw her son's body Saturday morning and collapsed that night in her kitchen.
Her husband, Dennis Wahrer -- also a respiratory therapist -- and other family members performed CPR but Unruh-Wahrer was pronounced dead that night.
Autopsy results won't be released until relatives are notified, said Dr. Bruce Parks, Pima County chief medical examiner. There was no immediate response to a call to his office before business hours Tuesday.
Robert Unruh will be buried Friday at the Southern Arizona Veterans' Memorial Cemetery. His mother's body will accompany her son's in the procession to the cemetery.
I found this article on CNN.com and it is really sad. It is also worth taking note of. To often we look at things from a standpoint of winning or loosing. How often we forget that in a war everyone looses.
Mother of soldier killed in Iraq collapses, dies
'Her grief was so intense,' hospital worker says
Tuesday, October 5, 2004 Posted: 12:28 PM EDT (1628 GMT)
TUCSON, Arizona (AP) -- A 45-year-old woman collapsed and died days after learning her son had been killed in Iraq, and just hours after seeing his body.
Results of an autopsy were not immediately released, but friends of Karen Unruh-Wahrer said she couldn't stop crying over losing her 25-year-old son, Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh, who was killed by enemy fire near Baghdad on September 25.
"Her grief was so intense -- it seemed it could have harmed her, could have caused a heart attack. Her husband described it as a broken heart," said Cheryl Hamilton, manager of respiratory care services at University Medical Center, where Unruh-Wahrer worked as a respiratory therapist.
Unruh, a combat engineer, had been in Iraq less than a month when he was shot during an attack on his unit.
Several days after learning of his death, his mother had gone to the hospital complaining of chest pains, Hamilton said. She was feeling better the next day but saw her son's body Saturday morning and collapsed that night in her kitchen.
Her husband, Dennis Wahrer -- also a respiratory therapist -- and other family members performed CPR but Unruh-Wahrer was pronounced dead that night.
Autopsy results won't be released until relatives are notified, said Dr. Bruce Parks, Pima County chief medical examiner. There was no immediate response to a call to his office before business hours Tuesday.
Robert Unruh will be buried Friday at the Southern Arizona Veterans' Memorial Cemetery. His mother's body will accompany her son's in the procession to the cemetery.
The flu hype...
You know since my last 2 years in the military I have been a little sensitive to taking shots (vaccinations). Because of personal experience that I won't bore you with here I am convinced more and more that most of them aren't needed. Anyway, a few weeks ago I remember seeing an article in the Internet news about the fact that there was an over abundance of flu shots still left and that no one was getting them. Today I found this article...(This is an excerpt from an AP Article All Rights Reserved.)
Officials Warn of 'Significant Shortage' of Flu Vaccine
By EMMA ROSS and MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP
LONDON (Oct. 5) - Global and U.S. health officials warned Tuesday of major flu shot shortages after British health officials abruptly pulled the license of the maker of half the U.S. vaccine just as flu season was about to begin.
The news means the United States will face "a significant shortage," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health's infectious disease chief.
Now normally I don't get all caught up in conspiracy theories but it does make you wonder what 'big brother' is playing around with these days. Not to mention the fact that the only thing getting a flu shot ever did for me was giving me the flu...Go figure!?!
Officials Warn of 'Significant Shortage' of Flu Vaccine
By EMMA ROSS and MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP
LONDON (Oct. 5) - Global and U.S. health officials warned Tuesday of major flu shot shortages after British health officials abruptly pulled the license of the maker of half the U.S. vaccine just as flu season was about to begin.
The news means the United States will face "a significant shortage," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institutes of Health's infectious disease chief.
Now normally I don't get all caught up in conspiracy theories but it does make you wonder what 'big brother' is playing around with these days. Not to mention the fact that the only thing getting a flu shot ever did for me was giving me the flu...Go figure!?!
20041003
The media in this country needs a kick in the ASS!!!
Hello My Dear Readers,
You know usually I am not fazed anymore by the garbage that the media in this country pumps out, but lately they have been in over drive. Take for a minute the following examples:
CBS news --Runs a story a few weeks ago, with information that was never substantiated or checked, and cannot be verified even after the fact; concerning President Bush and his military service. Not to mention the fact that a number of sources are now saying, one of the people involved in that story, was paid to provide documents and statements that were blatantly false. Dan Rather does apologize (even though he qualified it saying he was just trying to be a good reporter and patriotic)a few weeks after the fact, and then only after he is 'forced' to do so by the network he works for, CBS. Is what Dan Rather did any different than what the NY Times reporter did last year when he lied in the columns he was writing? I don't think so, I think it is the same thing. I think that since Rather has been in the business longer and is on TV he is getting more slack.
Almost every network which covered the first Presidential debate, and reported on it, is stating that Sen. John Kerry was the winner of the first debate. Not because he had better positions and ideas, but because during the debate a few times the President made a face or smirked the wrong way. Gee facial expressions are what I think about when I want to select someone who is going to lead the country that I live in...NOT!
Also today on AOL news I saw that Tom Brokaw, as well as a few other news casters came out to support Dan Rather for the debacle he created with his bogus news story about the President a few weeks ago. I guess we now know were journalist integrity stands. In the closet tucked away for that college student who is studying and not to be used in the real world.
Then today I also read a news report on AOL news via20/20 titled, The Bush Family Soap Opera. (See also --ABCNews.com)
Now when I first saw this I thought something interesting had occurred over the weekend that I might have missed. So I clicked on the link and what do I discover? It is a story about Neil Bush and his former wife Sharon. Seemingly, the people at 20/20 had nothing better to do, than going out to dig up a 20+ year old story about Neil Bush to hurt the sitting President, his brother. They showed clips of a hearing from when he had a failed Savings and Loan hearing back in the 80's. They also showed part of a deposition hearing from his divorce proceeding. As well as a bunch of other things that had nothing to do with anything other than a failed marriage. 20/20 did its best though to tie it to the current President and to blacken his name. As if President Bush is responsible for his brothers' bad business dealings and infidelity in his brother's marriage. For what reason did they publish this story? Is there nothing current that they could have run? To me the only explanation is that the media is so liberal that they will do anything to spin something against any conservative candidate. Could the media in this country be any more liberal? Perhaps tommorow they will hold up picket signs which say, 'bring back Clinton', or maybe 'lying is okay only if the media does it.'
You know if you don't like President Bush and the republicans because you don't agree with the positions or ideas they have then don't vote for them in November. But please people if you are basing your ideas on facial expressions and the spin the media seems hell bent on producing then do the rest of us a favor and DON'T VOTE!!! I have no problem with people who disagree with President Bush because of the issues. I have a huge problem with people who seem intent on gobbling up the media spin like it is the only truth out there. Election years are normally bad for spin but this year seems particularly foul!
CRAZINESS...COMPLETE CRAZINESS!!!
You know usually I am not fazed anymore by the garbage that the media in this country pumps out, but lately they have been in over drive. Take for a minute the following examples:
CBS news --Runs a story a few weeks ago, with information that was never substantiated or checked, and cannot be verified even after the fact; concerning President Bush and his military service. Not to mention the fact that a number of sources are now saying, one of the people involved in that story, was paid to provide documents and statements that were blatantly false. Dan Rather does apologize (even though he qualified it saying he was just trying to be a good reporter and patriotic)a few weeks after the fact, and then only after he is 'forced' to do so by the network he works for, CBS. Is what Dan Rather did any different than what the NY Times reporter did last year when he lied in the columns he was writing? I don't think so, I think it is the same thing. I think that since Rather has been in the business longer and is on TV he is getting more slack.
Almost every network which covered the first Presidential debate, and reported on it, is stating that Sen. John Kerry was the winner of the first debate. Not because he had better positions and ideas, but because during the debate a few times the President made a face or smirked the wrong way. Gee facial expressions are what I think about when I want to select someone who is going to lead the country that I live in...NOT!
Also today on AOL news I saw that Tom Brokaw, as well as a few other news casters came out to support Dan Rather for the debacle he created with his bogus news story about the President a few weeks ago. I guess we now know were journalist integrity stands. In the closet tucked away for that college student who is studying and not to be used in the real world.
Then today I also read a news report on AOL news via20/20 titled, The Bush Family Soap Opera. (See also --ABCNews.com)
Now when I first saw this I thought something interesting had occurred over the weekend that I might have missed. So I clicked on the link and what do I discover? It is a story about Neil Bush and his former wife Sharon. Seemingly, the people at 20/20 had nothing better to do, than going out to dig up a 20+ year old story about Neil Bush to hurt the sitting President, his brother. They showed clips of a hearing from when he had a failed Savings and Loan hearing back in the 80's. They also showed part of a deposition hearing from his divorce proceeding. As well as a bunch of other things that had nothing to do with anything other than a failed marriage. 20/20 did its best though to tie it to the current President and to blacken his name. As if President Bush is responsible for his brothers' bad business dealings and infidelity in his brother's marriage. For what reason did they publish this story? Is there nothing current that they could have run? To me the only explanation is that the media is so liberal that they will do anything to spin something against any conservative candidate. Could the media in this country be any more liberal? Perhaps tommorow they will hold up picket signs which say, 'bring back Clinton', or maybe 'lying is okay only if the media does it.'
You know if you don't like President Bush and the republicans because you don't agree with the positions or ideas they have then don't vote for them in November. But please people if you are basing your ideas on facial expressions and the spin the media seems hell bent on producing then do the rest of us a favor and DON'T VOTE!!! I have no problem with people who disagree with President Bush because of the issues. I have a huge problem with people who seem intent on gobbling up the media spin like it is the only truth out there. Election years are normally bad for spin but this year seems particularly foul!
CRAZINESS...COMPLETE CRAZINESS!!!
20041001
A letter from Iraq...
This is a letter that a friend of mine wrote to the El Defensor Chieftian (The news paper in Socorro, New Mexico -where I used to live). Ed is a great guy and a true friend. Take to heart what he has to say because he doesn't BS (Pardon the language). He is a veteran of the Vietnam War and now working as a civilian in Iraq to help the U.S Military in Iraq. Ed you are in my prayers...here is the letter.
This letter is the property of the El Defensor Chieftian and Copyright laws are applicable.
The view from Iraq
Editor:
Last night I was standing outside my office eating an apple when I saw a large, fiery explosion. Then I heard a loud bang and I knew in my heart that one of our convoys had gotten hit.
Seconds after the blast, the radio crackled with sounds of the convoy personnel trying to find out what had happened and to whom. Both military and civilians jumped to do the job that sends chills down your spine, the search for casualties. I waited for somebody to call in the location of the injuries and sure enough, two ambulances were called to the gunner gate to assist the convoy as it rolled in with the injured. I rushed to the gate to try and give any assistance that I could.
Two of our soldiers were injured with second-degree burns to their bodies. We got them the Emed (emergency medical treatment) they needed and returned to the situation at hand.
Military personnel and civilians clustered into two groups, both and began taking down all the information they could on the incident. We then use that information to try to prevent another convoy from being caught in the same way. These men had been hit with an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and then received small arms fire in the field and in the building. Hopefully we'll prevent the next one.
I'm writing this to you because, after working here in Iraq for over a year, I'm finding that the papers I read from home are saying things about us that need correction.
First, what you see and hear about the Iraqi people in the news deserves another view. Most of my dealings with the Iraqis have been very positive. Considering the conditions they are living in, that really says a lot about them. If you could see through the media spin and really know what's going on you would see a people that are courageously working to build their lives in an incredibly difficult environment.
Being here, you can see that the problems mostly come from outsiders. Syria and Iran would like very much to carve up Iraq and it's oil fields for themselves. The Iraqi people would lose either way.
Yes, people are being killed here every day. They are being killed so they cannot join the police forces. They are being killed so they cannot join the Iraqi army.
The terrorists murder exclusively to stop us from stabilizing the country. The terrorists even target Christians in their churches.
This is still very much a war. The insurgents know they could never stand up to our American forces, so they practice terror and murder civilians to win the war in the American media. That is the only way they can drive us out and enslave the Iraqi people.
If we keep up our courage here and, very importantly, at home this won't become a Vietnam. I've seen both and Iraq is very, very different.
The vast majority of the Iraqi people are with us and are risking their lives daily for this chance for freedom. We cannot abandon them.
Our troops, civilian support workers and the Iraqi people need you to stand with us and be proud with us of the job we're doing here. History will record this as a great turning point for all of the people of the Middle East, if we don't lose our resolve. Pray for us.
Edward J. Britt II, of Socorro
From Taji, Iraq
This letter is the property of the El Defensor Chieftian and Copyright laws are applicable.
The view from Iraq
Editor:
Last night I was standing outside my office eating an apple when I saw a large, fiery explosion. Then I heard a loud bang and I knew in my heart that one of our convoys had gotten hit.
Seconds after the blast, the radio crackled with sounds of the convoy personnel trying to find out what had happened and to whom. Both military and civilians jumped to do the job that sends chills down your spine, the search for casualties. I waited for somebody to call in the location of the injuries and sure enough, two ambulances were called to the gunner gate to assist the convoy as it rolled in with the injured. I rushed to the gate to try and give any assistance that I could.
Two of our soldiers were injured with second-degree burns to their bodies. We got them the Emed (emergency medical treatment) they needed and returned to the situation at hand.
Military personnel and civilians clustered into two groups, both and began taking down all the information they could on the incident. We then use that information to try to prevent another convoy from being caught in the same way. These men had been hit with an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) and then received small arms fire in the field and in the building. Hopefully we'll prevent the next one.
I'm writing this to you because, after working here in Iraq for over a year, I'm finding that the papers I read from home are saying things about us that need correction.
First, what you see and hear about the Iraqi people in the news deserves another view. Most of my dealings with the Iraqis have been very positive. Considering the conditions they are living in, that really says a lot about them. If you could see through the media spin and really know what's going on you would see a people that are courageously working to build their lives in an incredibly difficult environment.
Being here, you can see that the problems mostly come from outsiders. Syria and Iran would like very much to carve up Iraq and it's oil fields for themselves. The Iraqi people would lose either way.
Yes, people are being killed here every day. They are being killed so they cannot join the police forces. They are being killed so they cannot join the Iraqi army.
The terrorists murder exclusively to stop us from stabilizing the country. The terrorists even target Christians in their churches.
This is still very much a war. The insurgents know they could never stand up to our American forces, so they practice terror and murder civilians to win the war in the American media. That is the only way they can drive us out and enslave the Iraqi people.
If we keep up our courage here and, very importantly, at home this won't become a Vietnam. I've seen both and Iraq is very, very different.
The vast majority of the Iraqi people are with us and are risking their lives daily for this chance for freedom. We cannot abandon them.
Our troops, civilian support workers and the Iraqi people need you to stand with us and be proud with us of the job we're doing here. History will record this as a great turning point for all of the people of the Middle East, if we don't lose our resolve. Pray for us.
Edward J. Britt II, of Socorro
From Taji, Iraq
Last nights Presidential debate...
I watched the debate last night although I was annoyed at myself because I missed the first part. I probably missed about 20 minutes all together. However from what I did see I think that the debate was pretty much a draw.
I was really surprised because both candidates were really prepared and in great form. I was half expecting them to go after each other but that never happened. Here are some reason that I think it was a draw:
Sen. John Kerry (D. MA): Sen. Kerry couldn't fully explain his flip-flops on the votes that he cast through out the last couple of years where the Iraq war was concerned. (At least not for me he couldn't.) I really wanted to know what would make a parties highest member in the Senate vote one way and then come back and bad mouth the very thing he had voted for. I got the feeling that he was half admitting a mistake but he didn't go all the way and just come out and say that he blew that one. I would have even understood (although I wouldn't have agreed with him) if he said that he was under immense pressure to vote the way he did!
Second: I thought Sen. Kerry played up the combat Veteran thing to much. Again here we have a guy who went to war and then came home and threw away all his medals. I don't understand this at all. He basically came home and when he first got into the Senate he voted against a lot of bills concerning the recovery of P.O.W's I didn't like that when I found out about it.
Third: I think it is easy for Sen. Kerry to say that he is going to finish the job in Iraq. Yet I didn't here him say how. It is easy to say that he will get other countries involved: France, Germany, and others; but it is a completely different matter when you are in the Oval Office. Even the commentators said this after the debate. He is promising a lot of things right now but the problem is that he can't really be sure that he will deliver them.
President George Bush Jr.: President Bush didn't do a good enough job explaining why we didn't get Osama bin Ladin first and then go after Iraq. This has been a thorn in his side for some time and I didn't see it get cleared up in the debate. Although he did explain somewhat more than he has in the past, there are still questions that he needs to answer.
Second: President Bush could have gone on the offensive more when Sen. Kerry spoke about his plans for Iraq. In other words he should have asked Sen. Kerry how he expects to get all these other countries involved when from before the war even started they were all saying that they didn't want any part of it. France in particular has said that they will never go to war with Iraq and that they would oppose any such plan that the US or Great Britan had for such plan. This was an opening to put a good 'jab' into Sen. Kerry's face and I think the President missed it.
I thought both candidates were very well prepared for this debate and looked good! Like I previously stated I was half expecting a knock down drag out fight. That didn't happen and it was a good thing! Both candidates had clear and to the point answers except where I have pointed out above. Granted that these are my opinions but I really think this one was a draw. I am very interested to see the next debate which is due to be a town hall type meeting. Those types of debates usually have more difficult questions to answer because they are coming from the people themselves.
I also think for the first time that the people were able to see the true differences in these people who are seeking to be the leader of this country. Overall this was a good debate.
One thing I forgot: I thought that Sen. Kerry's plan to have bi-lateral talks with N. Korea as opposed to multi-lateral talks was not such a good idea. It is to easy for N. Korea to finagle out of talks with only one other nation; be it the US or anybody else.
I was really surprised because both candidates were really prepared and in great form. I was half expecting them to go after each other but that never happened. Here are some reason that I think it was a draw:
Sen. John Kerry (D. MA): Sen. Kerry couldn't fully explain his flip-flops on the votes that he cast through out the last couple of years where the Iraq war was concerned. (At least not for me he couldn't.) I really wanted to know what would make a parties highest member in the Senate vote one way and then come back and bad mouth the very thing he had voted for. I got the feeling that he was half admitting a mistake but he didn't go all the way and just come out and say that he blew that one. I would have even understood (although I wouldn't have agreed with him) if he said that he was under immense pressure to vote the way he did!
Second: I thought Sen. Kerry played up the combat Veteran thing to much. Again here we have a guy who went to war and then came home and threw away all his medals. I don't understand this at all. He basically came home and when he first got into the Senate he voted against a lot of bills concerning the recovery of P.O.W's I didn't like that when I found out about it.
Third: I think it is easy for Sen. Kerry to say that he is going to finish the job in Iraq. Yet I didn't here him say how. It is easy to say that he will get other countries involved: France, Germany, and others; but it is a completely different matter when you are in the Oval Office. Even the commentators said this after the debate. He is promising a lot of things right now but the problem is that he can't really be sure that he will deliver them.
President George Bush Jr.: President Bush didn't do a good enough job explaining why we didn't get Osama bin Ladin first and then go after Iraq. This has been a thorn in his side for some time and I didn't see it get cleared up in the debate. Although he did explain somewhat more than he has in the past, there are still questions that he needs to answer.
Second: President Bush could have gone on the offensive more when Sen. Kerry spoke about his plans for Iraq. In other words he should have asked Sen. Kerry how he expects to get all these other countries involved when from before the war even started they were all saying that they didn't want any part of it. France in particular has said that they will never go to war with Iraq and that they would oppose any such plan that the US or Great Britan had for such plan. This was an opening to put a good 'jab' into Sen. Kerry's face and I think the President missed it.
I thought both candidates were very well prepared for this debate and looked good! Like I previously stated I was half expecting a knock down drag out fight. That didn't happen and it was a good thing! Both candidates had clear and to the point answers except where I have pointed out above. Granted that these are my opinions but I really think this one was a draw. I am very interested to see the next debate which is due to be a town hall type meeting. Those types of debates usually have more difficult questions to answer because they are coming from the people themselves.
I also think for the first time that the people were able to see the true differences in these people who are seeking to be the leader of this country. Overall this was a good debate.
One thing I forgot: I thought that Sen. Kerry's plan to have bi-lateral talks with N. Korea as opposed to multi-lateral talks was not such a good idea. It is to easy for N. Korea to finagle out of talks with only one other nation; be it the US or anybody else.
